On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Mark Friedenbach <m...@monetize.io> wrote: > Certainly developers should be responsible for making sure that regression > tests for bugs they fix make it either into the unit tests or Matt's > functional test repository. QA should hold them accountable for that > (re-opening tickets for bugs that have been fixed but without regression > tests).
As a goal or general principle, this is agreeable. But slavish attention to this will only get ignored. There is finite developer resources, and regression tests for certain types of bugs, like prickly P2P network interaction bugs or RPC API bugs, could potentially involve many days or weeks of coding, to sufficiently simulate the environment. The ability to easily, automatically and programmatically reproduce certain classes of bugs is simply out of reach right now, and nobody is going to shut down development to fix that problem. We should move towards this direction, yes, but bitcoin test cases are not always going to be as easy as writing (say) a compiler testcase. We can always use the help of a few good QA coders: simulating a P2P environment and checking the RPC API are two examples of very complicated problems that -can- be automated for testing... with a lot of work. -- Jeff Garzik exMULTI, Inc. jgar...@exmulti.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How fast is your code? 3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production. Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
